Aversa v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a AUSA’s conduct, while “tortious and contrary to his employer’s policies and rules,” was within the scope of his employment
• noting that district court “justifiably could find” that employee intended, “at least in part and although misguidedly, to serve an objective of his employer”
• noting that the Department of Justice “reasonably could anticipate that an [Assistant U.S. Attorney] entrusted with [the power to inform the public about arrests, indictments, and convictions] might abuse it”
• noting that, after the Ratzlaf 12 opinion. Congress amended 31 U.S.C. § 5324 to remove willfulness as an element of the offense
• noting that the “law of respondeat superior of the state in which the incident occurred” governs the analysis
• stating that where a third party “refuses to hire the plaintiff solely as a result of the defendant’s defamation, the plaintiff has not described a viable constitutional claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).